lol Resses are a rarity this side of the pond - a Mars Bar will have to suffice

However much appreciated - and your thoughts - the way ATS works - just how much should someone like us question posts based on dubious evidence ?

I am awere of posting back on a subject and killing it - without meaning to - Im not a kill joy but do have an attention to the facts - like my posts
on NESERA tonight - I want to correct things but dont want to kill them for nit picking.

Personally and just my opinion.....
You should refute, respond, deny ignorance, and do it when you feel you need to. As to "how"....as MA teaches and councils.....with tact, but
sometimes one must do it with a bit of harshness due to the fact that many believe so passionately in what they have for information......
I, on the other hand, do it selectively, based on how much knowledge I have combined with factual evidences I have found, other than the
internet.....the problem is, I have a hard time remembering to write down my citations for quoting from library sources....bad me.....not good.

Follow your heart and mind...it seems, at least in my experiences here, that when you refute too much, people tend to 'avoid' your postings and
such.....kinda like you have spoiled the party type of thing and now no one wants to associate with ya......

My gripe, as yours, is that it seems that alot of folks take internet information with great crediability and fail to check the sources and even then,
sources get called "bias", BS, etc......so, in a way....one must rely on the information found...key is to check or cross reference the information
given with outher sources to see just "how" factual thier information is......
Trust me...I've done the same, been there done that and had to learn this the hard way......
I think that is why I am more critical of some information posted on topic and on topics, in general. That belief that because it is on the internet
that it is the gospel truth.

Questions:
Where will I find information on orgonomy and radionics other than the visible web that does not debunk it in an unfair way?

According to the accepted mainstream and sciences, it doesn't exist. Yet I find too much evidence that suggest that it does.

That's the problem I have. Of course the web shouldn't be regarded as "holy" and inerrant. But lot's of stuff in the library and in accepted
scientific studies also have their faults. Especially when it conflicts with what I personally have experienced and studied from different sides and
directions. Like radionics and orgone energy for example. Something which the scientists are heavily divided over and which the mainstream says that
it simply does not exist.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Like radionics and orgone energy for example. Something which the scientists are heavily divided over and which the mainstream says that it simply
does not exist.

Actually, scientists are NOT divided over this. They say it doesn't exist. At one time they thought there might be evidence for it, but better
measurements and better research showed it wasn't so.

However... if you want to research something you feel exists in the libraries, then you need to understand more about the subject. For instance, if
you were researching ghost phenomina, the way to do it in libraries is to look at the basic theory (electromagnetic vibrations) and then come up with
your own instrument that measures ghosts.

Then give the plans to someone else and let them test it, and give it to a third person and let them test it... then all of you test your devices on
the same object.

That's science, and that's how scientists get acceptance for things that may be on the fringe.

For a lot of the "zero point" energy things that have been so widely debunked, you'll have to go back to basic mathematics and physics.

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, scientists are NOT divided over this. They say it doesn't exist. At one time they thought there might be evidence for it, but better
measurements and better research showed it wasn't so.

Mainstream scientists say it doesn't exist. They practically destroyed the discoverer (Wilhelm Reich) very unfairly. And his work was critized
heavily without the critics even attempting to duplicate his experiments.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.